Welcome to 3AW. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

3AW - Fairfax Radio Network

Sunday March 21, 2010

What we're talking about

Dr Sabi Lal - why is he still allowed to practice?

Posted by: Derryn Hinch for 3AW.com.au | 21 May, 2009 - 5:47 PM


Every decent doctor, male and female, in this country should shake their heads in anger and sorrow today. And every vulnerable woman who has ever undressed in front of her doctor.

At least you knew, until now, there were standards, ethics, moral codes, legal boundaries. And if a doctor transgressed they could - and would – be prosecuted and banned from ever practicing again. Until now.

Today The Victorian Court of Appeal ruled that a doctor convicted of rape will be allowed to practice again.

Sabi Lal was struck off by the Medical Practitioners Board after he was found guilty of raping a patient in 1998. He also had prior convictions for sexual assault.
The court today upheld a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that he be allowed to practice, but not have female patients.

This is madness. This is wrong.

The Medical Practitioners’ Board opposed his return and considers him unfit to practice. And you have to ask: what the hell is going on here?  Doctor (and I use the word loosely) Doctor Sabi Lal was first suspended in 1999 following complaints from seven women. Seven.

He was allowed to return to practice in 2000 but only permitted to treat male patients over 16.  He was allowed to treat women again later that year but soon after assaulted two female drug company reps and  in 2002 was given a suspended jail sentence for digital rape.

Despite all that VCAT gave him his licence back and a court has sanctioned it. Even though VCAT acknowledged that the Fijian-born doctor has character flaws –which include sexual obsessions-- shows no remorse and there was a risk of a mental illness relapse which could result in ‘inappropriate behaviour with women’.  Rape is not ‘inappropriate behaviour’. Indecent assault by a doctor is not ‘inappropriate behaviour’. They are crimes. This man should be barred for life. Even VCAT in its ruling concedes that Dr. Lal’s rehabilitation is ‘less than complete’.

I go back to what I said last year when Lal’s reinstatement was approved by VCAT:
Imagine this, if you are a woman. You walk into a shoe repairer’s shop and the man there says he thinks he can fix your problem but first step behind this screen and take your clothes off. You wouldn’t do it. You’d think he was weird or crazy or dangerous and you wouldn’t do it. But put the word ‘Doctor’ before his name and you would. That’s because you have faith in your doctor. And trust in your doctor.
And, when you are at your most vulnerable, when you suspect you have a lump in your breast or you are overdue for a Pap test, you rely on that trust and that faith.
As I said, this man should be barred from ever donning a white coat or a stethoscope again.

He should be banned for life.

Blog comments Your Say

  • http://www.medicalboardvic.org.au/assets/drlal.pdf

    See Para 30 - Testimony of Dr Singh. Dr Singh testified to the effect that Dr Lal didn't know the difference between right and wrong and couldn't have been therefore guilty in the County Court hearing.

    A short time later he was of no or minimal risk, and upon questioning by the Medical board of 'moderate to medical risk'.

    Miraculous recovery even back in 2002-2003 before the relapse that then led to the further recovery.

    adele pace Wednesday 3 March, 2010 - 12:01 PM

  • As I'm sure none of you have read the case or the judgements, the 'rape' was a pap smear test. There was no sexual gratification and even the prosecutor conceded that it was "properly undertaken and necessary". He got found guilty of rape because the patient asked for this particular procedure to be done by a female Dr and Dr Lal said he would arrange that. He said he would prepare the patient and then a female dr would take over. As he was saying this he continued and completed the procedure. The court found this was because he was suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder.

    Whilst there are many concerning parts of this judgements, it is disrespectful to the victim and your listeners to be so sensationalist in your reporting.

    Bryan Saturday 6 February, 2010 - 9:11 PM

  • Giselle its not unusual for friends and family to support
    those close to them and believe them.
    Your train of thought though may have been different if it was you or a close family member it happened to.

    Your not having empathy for the victims and how they must be feeling because you dont know them or see them
    in extreme psychological trauma.

    Caz Thursday 12 November, 2009 - 9:10 AM

  • I am a Solicitor who has an unblemished record, no complaints, no insurance claims, no allegations of misconduct.

    However you have to go back to the Medical Board of Victoria decision, and in particular the testimony of eminent Psychiatrists, the most eminent in the State who have been an apologist for his behaviour.

    See para 30 - Professor Bruce Singh http://medicalboardvic.org.au/pdf/DrLal.pdf

    Dr Graeme Burrows
    http://medicalboardvic.org.au/pdf/DrJoseph03.pdf

    Dr Singh evaluated my 'mental state' and fitness to practice law based upon my written correspondence as a previous victim of a "boundary violation" brought to the authorities by one of his own, the psychiatric profession. With his permission I taped the conversation, and have a transcript of it.

    These doctors, leading the future generation of Psychiatrists are wicked.

    He deemed me to be personality disordered because of my views on Psychiatry and showed he had little sympathy for victims of these Doctors' crimes.

    Nor did he pay any regard to the fact that after 8 convictions for crimes committed against me 15 years ago, I had gotten on with my life, and risen above post traumatic stress disorder and major depression.

    He didn't seem to understand that a person can be sane without psychiatric treatment. Why would I want to expose myself to psychiatric treatment when faced with the insult of what had happened, and the further indignity of how some Psychiatrists treat victims of crime.

    He was aggressive, insulting, and retaliatory.

    Adele Pace

    adele Monday 9 November, 2009 - 10:27 AM

  • Giselle, comparisons mean nothing when you are a victim of assult.

    And, why do you put the word - assults - in quotes implying it wasn't real?

    Both statements say a lot. Like you said, he is a friend of yours.

    Liberator Monday 25 May, 2009 - 3:30 PM

  • Australia is under attack !!!

    Justin Monday 25 May, 2009 - 2:17 PM

Post a comment * Mandatory fields